Letters to the Editor
-
Institutionalized Hypocrisy
With respect, Glenn, I think you are a bit off-target on this one. There is an institutionalized hypocrisy in American politics, certainly at least since World War II, which permits all manner of bellicose statements to be made about "official" adversaries -- "Red" China from 1950 to 1971, Cuba since 1959, Nicaragua after the Sandinistas toppled the Somozas. Indeed, not only bellicose statements, but we have turned a blind eye to "covert" operations which were only "covert" in being official secrets, such as mining Nicaragua's principal Pacific Ocean port. So McCain et al. are not saying anything so different post-9/11 than right-wingers have felt free to say pre-9/11, that is, bloodthirsty threats of U.S. intervention against countries we didn't like but which in most cases posed no real threat to the national security of the United States.
At the same time, we have never forsworn various types of intervention in countries that were not official adversaries. The institutionalized convention of the political class, however, has been to remain mum on what we might be up to in those cases. The fact that our activities become known to the governments of those countries doesn't seem to faze us much so long as they in turn play it down, which again in most cases they have been willing to do. Pakistan under Musharraf has been an excellent case in point. McCain's jibe, consequently, however hypocritical, is still effective politics -- it signals to those who aren't paying close attention that he is "experienced in such matters" while Obama isn't, and signals to the political class that, far from being a maverick, he really is one of them, while Obama is an outsider to be rejected.
In the Versailles culture, this passes for consistency, not hypocrisy.
-
@HRH
http://www.google.co.vi/search?hl=en&q=obama+pakistan
There's no shortage......
-
Al Qaeda a protected Republican political asset
Bush (and the Republicans) need to keep Al Qaeda around as a boogeyman. That's why they conveniently allowed Bin Laden to escape at Tora Bora.
When Obama suggested attacking Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if we received "actionable" intelligence, Bush and the GOP howled as if Obama was going to attack a valuable US asset -- which in essence, he was. Al Qaeda is a political asset for the Republicans that continues to be both protected and exploited to this day.
-
McCain needs decaf
Ah, the politics of name calling. So Republican. So putrid.
Glenn, thanks for this post. I didn't know just how rancid the conventional wisdom was and is on this. The Washington Post's Op-Ed section (excepting E. Robinson, H. Meyerson and D. Froomkin) is a prime example of such rancid posturing.
And I's certain the surviving Beach Boys truly wish McCain would stop attempting to sing "Barbara Ann".
-
Well, sure, but McCain didn't meant that *Republicans* would be naive to bomb countries
Clearly, Glenn simply lacks the sophisticates' understanding that when right wingers discuss any military policies whatsoever, it is evidence of their courage, their moral uprightness, their toughness, even their sheer gumption in the face of all those ivory tower perfessers.
When non-right-wingers discuss any military policies whatsoever, it is evidence of their naivete, their immoral dodgings, their inherent weakness on national defense, and even their mean capitulation to all the fringe crazies erupting from the fevered imaginations of any right winger.
There is a difference.
When McCain talks about bombing somewhere, anywhere, he is a Republican, so he is automatically right.
When any Democrat except those few Democrats seen as "serious" by right wingers talks about any international law enforcement or military action, they are mere Democrats, so they are automatically wrong.
-
Not Your Citizens Killed
DanJoaqinOz said about Sen. Obama: 'Obama's comments about bombing Pakistan were, despite their hypothetical nature, surprisingly stupid and disappointingly bellicose. The correct, approved, Village response is, as we all know by heart, that "no options are off the table".'
Dan, I have no problems with almost everything you post. You seem like a good mate. You are, (IMO), wrong about this. Osama Bin Laden murdered over 2,500 U.S. citizens (plus guest nationals including probably 3 or 4 Australians).
He MUST be brought to justice. If we find out exactly where he is in Pakistan & their government refuses to do anything about it, then we're going to get his ass. That is what Sen. Obama said & I think the vast majority of Americans agree with him.
Bottom line: I WANT OSAMA BIN LADEN'S HEAD ON A PIKE.
-
Tacit approval of bombing Pakistan?
I honestly hope that my fellow liberals aren't sweeping Obama into office on a platform of bombing Pakistan.
-
Must fix typo
UPDATE: In Comments, William Timberman, Cabalist and Warmonger, adds an important point...
-
I expect that Obama's reference to bombing Pakistan
was surgical strikes with stealth or UAV technology, possibly a Cruise missile strike, to go after OBL or al-Qaeda assets hiding out in the FATA. It's not carpet bombing with B 52s. They would be sitting ducks and the Pakistanis would be within their rights to shoot them down, and could do so easily.
-
No Safe Havens versus Indiscriminate Attacks
I think there is a very large distinction between a policy based on no safe havens for Osama Bin Laden and any other perpetrators of mass murder and a policy based on "smacking other countries around to show we mean business" and similar behavior that has led us to disaster in Iraq. That the latter policy is actually discussed Seriously as opposed to being dismissed with derision is an index of how seriously deranged our national political discourse has become, and how necessary fundamental change is.
-
on a platform of bombing Pakistan.
Considering how poorly the "take all our toys and go home" platform plays in Peoria, I'd say that actually knowing who our enemies are is a sufficient improvement over our current situation to generate a little excitement.
There's a lot about the world that wouldn't be the case if I were in charge, but I'd rather work on incremental improvements rather than throw up my hands and note that all the major candidates are willing to drop bombs under certain circumstances and go back into my shell.
-
Perhaps DanJoaquinOz
Doesn't understand what the FATA is.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bearden03312004.html
Even the Pakistani army doesn't go there. Obama may understand, as most people do, that factions of the current Pakistani government (Musharraf) cannot appear to allow the U.S. to strike the region, and will protest vociferously, but they do not mind if we do it and it kills OBL and al-Qaeda assets.